It's finally here!

[VNY]

No, but that one is even better.

I totally agree, pink and greens, to me are a sharp looking uniform, and it has history to boot.

We don't want to make members buy a new pair of pants that doesn't go with anything else, so it would be "Pinks & Greys".

The mere fact that the new 39-1 calls the Blazer a "Corporate Service Dress" is a pretty good indication they are not even considering an actual corporate service uniform.

[Paul Creed III]

As a side note, FLWG has a supplement that prohibits the blue beret, even for NBB graduates, at military installations within the wing.

If the headgear is OK / appropriate to wear elsewhere, it's appropriate to wear on a military base,
and if you're embarrassed to wear it in front of dad, then you probably shouldn't wear it at all.

It's the CAP equivalent of a girl walking out the front door in jeans and a t-shirt and then changing into
something her parents would hate in the car.

If I remember correctly this rule was imposed so as not to confuse CAPers with Security Forces, who wear the blue beret.

I can see how a 16 year old cadet wearing BDUs could be confused with Air Force Security Forces personnel... Wait! What? 

This policy applies to ALL military installations (last I check only the Air Force uses blue berets). TACP airmen wear black berets, but no one's ever been concerned that they may be confused with Army soldiers.

Besides, since the Air Force HAS (mostly likely) authorized CAP to wear the blue beret with BDUs and the blue beret has been in use for at least a couple of decades, I'm not sure where the concern comes from. Besides, Florida is not the only wing with military installations, yet no such restriction exists (that I'm aware of) in the other wings. I'm with Eclipse on this. Either the beret is appropriate for wear or it's not.

Security Forces at my squadron's host installation has requested that we do not wear the blue beret either.

[Shuman 14]

No it's not. It a matter of respect, we are the volunteers without rank, they are the paid professional officers, makes perfect sense to me.

"We"?

The assumption that our service, in its context, is secondary, or less, is both misguided and false.

It is different, plain and simple.  Exchanging salutes, as a sign of mutual respect, is appropriate.  If that's too much to ask,
then perhaps it's time both parties got over themselves, because neither understands the question.

Our members serve honorably, and generally at their own expense and during their off hours and vacations, in an organization
that the United States Congress has chartered and funds which is authorized to appoint those same members to grades
which have a military analog.  That isn't "higher or lower" it simply is.

I was talking "we" in the context of the USCGAux, not CAP.

In the the USCGAux, the only "rank" we have is Auxiliarist, it's lower than an Seaman Recruit (E-1), it's the reason we only wear a Member Device when we augment the Coast Guard.

Yes our service is honorable, but so is the service of a Private, an Airman, or Seaman... but we all know our place in the pecking order; ours is at the very bottom.

I really think that's one of the differences in the thinking between CAP and the USCGAux, CAP members wear pseudo rank and like to think they are "separate and equal" from the USAF, but they're not. Auxies know we are at the bottom and happily serve there at "generally at our own expense and during our off hours and vacations." :-/

[Shuman 14]

No it's not. It a matter of respect, we are the volunteers without rank, they are the paid professional officers, makes perfect sense to me.

Having worked in Army Medical, I can tell you some stories about some so-called "professional" officers...

Oh I hear your brother, seen some 90 day wonder Captains in an Army hospital too.

[Shuman 14]

Last time I checked a uniform had it's purpose and flashy wasn't one of them.  Not every uniform needs a hat and if the membership has an issue with the uniform there is the process to recommend changes.  So far the only folks I have heard orseen have an issue with the G/W are those who choose to not abide by H/W and grooming and self defeat themselves when it comes to it.  And IMO the only reason I have heard for change is just to change.

So... the only folks you've heard or seen who have an issue with the G/Ws are those who actually wear the G/Ws?



Thank you for playing.  Please come again.

Snicker, snicker. 

[Shuman 14]

One only needs to look to the Apple Corps, Microsoft Militia, Target SRS (Special Retail Services), Best Buy Brigade, or the Walmart World Legion to see
the respect khaki commands.

[Shuman 14]

Last time I checked a uniform had it's purpose and flashy wasn't one of them.  Not every uniform needs a hat and if the membership has an issue with the uniform there is the process to recommend changes.  So far the only folks I have heard orseen have an issue with the G/W are those who choose to not abide by H/W and grooming and self defeat themselves when it comes to it.  And IMO the only reason I have heard for change is just to change.

So... the only folks you've heard or seen who have an issue with the G/Ws are those who actually wear the G/Ws?



Thank you for playing.  Please come again.

Go back and read the entire post and don't try to twist it.   There is nothing wrong with the G/W.

If you're color blind. 

[Shuman 14]

There is nothing wrong with the G/W.

You mean besides the fact that it's incomplete, right?

It also treats the members who wear it as a different class.

Bingo!

[Shuman 14]

Without knowing exactly what all the requirements/limitations imposed by the Air Force are, it's hard to come up with an acceptable alternative. For example, how distinctive from the Air Force uniform does our CAP corporate uniform have to be?

Unfortunately, clearly defining these parameters is not the only obstacle. There are two distinct schools of thought about what this uniform should look like. I'm not talking about specific colors or details. I'm talking about those members who want the uniform to be more military looking and on par with the Air Force-style uniform. And those other members who want the uniform to be less military looking and more easily accessible through commercial sources. Those are the same members who oppose clearly defined and uniformed trousers (even if gray), in favor for the more vague and commercially accessible definition in CAPM 39-1.

Until these two groups can be reconciled, I think the status quo will probably prevail.  I agree with Eclipse that in order to avoid treating some of our members as a separate class, any corporate uniform need to be complete and on par with the Air Force-style uniform, regardless of color chosen.

Well said.  :clap:

[Spaceman3750]

I've never felt like wearing G/Ws put me in a separate class, and I don't feel that anyone else I interact with has treated me that way. Either I get the job done or I don't and people treat me accordingly (and some are nice to me anyways even when I don't, like Eclipse ).

I like my BBDUs. I get to wear the boots that I like and I don't get dirty looks when I miss a shave (or a week's worth, like at NESA  :angel: ).

[Eclipse]

If you have no use for a formal uniform, the G/W's are fine.

If you have a need for a formal dress uniform, to stand with your peers, or worse your subordinates,
the G/W is completely lacking.

[Spaceman3750]

If you have no use for a formal uniform, the G/W's are fine.

If you have a need for a formal dress uniform, to stand with your peers, or worse your subordinates,
the G/W is completely lacking.

Fair enough.

[Shuman 14]

There shouldn't be any talk of what the G/WS look like. Want to go minimal? Grade and nameplate. But I should have the option of wearing my badges and ribbons (I do). A hat brings it more inline with the blues. A service coat would actually make it a service uniform for more formal events like ceremonies, encampments, conferences, etc.

A service coat to go with the G/W is certainly needed.  You could even bring back the old one - nobody is going to be confused if you are wearing grey pants with it.

Here's an idea if it "has" to be grey. Has anyone has seen the movie Corionalus, based on the play by Shakespeare?

They set Rome in modern time and here are some pictures of the "modern" Roman Service uniform:









White shirt, blue tie, grey trousers and tunic.





Ladies cut and young cadet sizes too.



All weather coat.

[Shuman 14]

No, but that one is even better.

I totally agree, pink and greens, to me are a sharp looking uniform, and it has history to boot.

The "pink" is khaki BTW. 

[NIN]

Here's an idea if it "has" to be grey. Has anyone has seen the movie Corionalus, based on the play by Shakespeare?

They set Rome in modern time and here are some pictures of the "modern" Roman Service uniform:

I watched this last week. I had a tough time with the dialog. (I admit to not being a gigantic fan of Sir William's diction and prose)

Interesting film, however.

[LSThiker]

Here's an idea if it "has" to be grey. Has anyone has seen the movie Corionalus, based on the play by Shakespeare?

Although I know you were being somewhat sarcastic, but an Air Force style officer coat in grey would look nice for a corporate service dress.  Set it up the same way as well.  As far as the hat, I do not what to use.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Last time I checked a uniform had it's purpose and flashy wasn't one of them.  Not every uniform needs a hat and if the membership has an issue with the uniform there is the process to recommend changes.  So far the only folks I have heard orseen have an issue with the G/W are those who choose to not abide by H/W and grooming and self defeat themselves when it comes to it.  And IMO the only reason I have heard for change is just to change.

(adopting John McLaughlin voice - cut me some slack, I used to work at a PBS station)

ISSUE ONE:
I am not here to get into a urinating contest with you, only to provide a hopefully-reasonable rebuttal.

ISSUE TWO:
Who said anything about "flashy?"  Is it, in your mind, that anything but the status quo would be "flashy?"  All I am talking about is adding a bit of colour, headgear (see Issue Three) and bringing the "aviator kit" in line as closely as possible with the Air Force equivalent.  At present, it is not.

ISSUE THREE:
To the best of my knowledge, the G/W kit and polo shirt are the only options without headgear.  I don't see a problem with the polo shirt, as that is intended to be informal.  However, the G/W kit is supposed to be a direct equivalent to the Air Force S/S blue uniform, which does have a hat.

Or maybe I'm just remembering many, many moons ago coming out of the dining hall at Lackland AFB uncovered and incurring the wrath of an MTI standing immediately outside, and then my own MTI once he found out.

ISSUE FOUR:
One can "choose" not to abide by grooming standards.  I sometimes have a beard, and when I do, I wear the G/W kit - clean and pressed, with everything in its proper place.  However, some members' religious preferences dictate they have a beard, Hasidic Jews and Sikhs among them.  I would say the Amish, but that is irrelevant since they will not join a quasi-military organisation.

ISSUE FIVE:
Not everyone "chooses" to abide by the H/W standards, for several reasons (not an exhaustive list):
1. Thyroid issues
2. Side effects of medication
3. Heredity

And for some with those conditions, all the diet and exercise in the world won't slim them down.  There is a big difference between those and the ones who eat too many Big Macs and never get off the sofa (except to find the TV changer) who don't have such a condition.

ISSUE SIX:
"Change for just the sake of change?"  I think not.  The "changes" most people have put forth are simply to provide an alternative uniform that is equivalent to the service dress - and the aviator kit, in its current configuration, is not.

ISSUE SEVEN:
A process to recommend changes...when there has been a moratorium on uniform changes for the past several years and a new-draft 39-1 is in process of being published with virtually no changes to "corporate" uniforms?  Do you, or anyone else, really believe that such a proposal would get any further than a Group Commander's CS file?

So, my conclusion is that the semi-formal/formal uniforms are not created equal.

There is an equivalent to BDU - the blue BBDU, which in fact I wear (and like).

There is an analogue to the flight suit - the blue bag, which I also wear (and like).

There is no direct equivalent to the service dress in any of its forms.

Theses submitted and nailed to the church door.

Bye-BYE!

[LSThiker]

ISSUE THREE:
To the best of my knowledge, the G/W kit and polo shirt are the only options without headgear.  I don't see a problem with the polo shirt, as that is intended to be informal.  However, the G/W kit is supposed to be a direct equivalent to the Air Force S/S blue uniform, which does have a hat.

I do not know why but for some reason the blue BDUs do not require a hat:

Headgear is not required but the CAP baseball cap is authorized.

I wish they would simply mandate it though. 

However, I will say, it the corporate uniform had a truly equal USAF service dress, I would probably ditch the USAF coat and simply own just the corporate uniforms.  I do not know why, but I simply find them to be more comfortable. 

Or that maybe because I wore BDUs in the Army, I am just more uptight about them :-) jk

[abdsp51]

Cyborg, don't try and twist what I have said.  I have never ever had an issue with someone who has had a legitimate medical issue, and I am well aware of the part genetics can play.  So that argument is moot.  As I said those that CHOOSE TO. 

At least you have finally provided more meat to your ideas and thoughts. 

Issue Three: Again not every uniform requires a hat, and simply because the G/W is an equivalent does mean it needs a hat.

Issue Two: Hey grey is a color.

Issue Seven: Yes I do believe the process can work and if you do not submit your ideas you do not give it the chance to.

Griping about the issues and not doing anything to attempt change does no one any good.  If you feel that strongly then submit your ideas.

[Shuman 14]

Here's an idea if it "has" to be grey. Has anyone has seen the movie Corionalus, based on the play by Shakespeare?

They set Rome in modern time and here are some pictures of the "modern" Roman Service uniform:

I watched this last week. I had a tough time with the dialog. (I admit to not being a gigantic fan of Sir William's diction and prose)

Interesting film, however.

I was unfamiliar with the play until I saw the movie. I liked it. I might suggest using the subtitles it does help to follow the dialog.